Former top umpire fears for Ginnivan’s safety

Eight-time AFL grand final umpire Shaun Ryan is concerned that opposition players may feel emboldened to tackle Collingwood goalsneak Jack Ginnivan dangerously in the knowledge they may not be penalised.

Ginnivan has been a lightning rod for attention this year due to his uncanny ability to draw free kicks for being taken too high.

However, umpires have wised up to the tactic, and in the last month or so, Ginnivan has had numerous claims for being tackled too high turned down, with the officiating umpire deeming him to have caused the high contact himself whether by dropping his knees, shrugging or lifting his arm.

It prompted the AFL to send out a reminder last week about what constitutes a too-high free kick, and what doesn’t.

The unintended consequence of that is that a can of worms has been opened, as evidenced by the most publicised example on Sunday when Essendon’s Mason Redman all but put Ginnivan in a headlock - but was still not penalised.

“The fear is that if there’s a tendency to call 'play on' in situations where perhaps both players contributed to the high tackle, then it might encourage tackling players to show less of a duty of care,” Ryan told Zero Hanger.

But Ryan, who officiated in 349 AFL games across 15 seasons, conceded there was a chance umpires treated players such as Ginnivan differently based on past experiences.

“The reality is that it may be that if there’s players that have had a number of instances in the past where they have got a free kick - and it was an unwarranted free kick - then they (umpires) may have umpired that scenario previously so there might be an unconscious element to that,” Ryan said.

“You’d like to think they’re umpiring every contest as it unfolds, but you can’t account for the unconscious aspect of it.”

Ryan also said that it was only natural for umpires to overreact to a new rule or interpretation by implementing it more often initially after it gets introduced.

However, he was adamant that umpires’ jobs would be easier if changes to the rules didn’t occur so often.

“In any role in any walk of life if there’s no change and there’s that constant consistent approach it’s a lot easier,” he said.

“The reality is that by reason of research and events that occur in games and all those types of things, the AFL feel a need to make changes to ensure the safety of the players but also the spectacle for the fans.

“There also needs to be consideration that the more rule changes that you implement, there’s always an effect with respect to those rule changes and the effect is, from an umpiring point of view, that you now need to adjudicate on yet another rule and these rules are all subject to interpretation, they’re never black and white.

“And so, it just throws in another layer every time that there’s a rule change. Even if rule changes are designed to make things black and white, they never do and never can because nothing is in our game.”

Compounding things is that Ryan also believes a “fundamental problem” with the wording of the new too-high interpretation is causing confusion with regard to its implementation.

The rule has attracted much controversy and attention this year, thanks largely to Ginnivan, and to a lesser extent Western Bulldogs forward, Cody Weightman.

Embed from Getty Images
Last week’s AFL statement read: “Where the tackle is reasonably applied, there is no prior opportunity and the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact via a shrug, drop or arm lift – play on should be called.

"Where the tackle is reasonably applied, and there is prior opportunity, and the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact via a shrug, drop or arm lift – holding the ball should be called.”

But Ryan, who was not only one of the best ever to blow a whistle at the top level before his retirement in 2020, but is also a barrister by trade, believes that’s where the heart of the problem lies.

“What I see the fundamental problem at the moment perhaps with this rule is that the language of it seems to be that if the player with the ball is responsible for the high tackle, then it’s 'play on,'” Ryan said.

“Now, what does the word ‘responsible’ mean?

“I hear two things said in relation to that word ‘responsible’, and they’re used always interchangeably, and that’s by AFL players, coaches (and) media, sometimes they’ll say, ‘Did the player cause the high tackle?’ or ‘Did the player contribute to the high tackle?’

“Now, they’re vastly different things, and what I mean by that is this: if the player with the ball was the sole cause of the high tackle, then, yeah, there should be a (holding the ball) free kick for that because the only reason why the tackle went high was because of the action of the player with the ball in that he ducked or he dropped at the knees or the tackle was a legal tackle but he used the arm to push the tackle high. So, the player with the ball caused it.

“But what you hear regularly is the player contributed to the tackle. Now, that’s a different kettle of fish. Did he contribute to it by one percent? Five percent? Ten percent?”

The Redman-Ginnivan incident left AFL legend Leigh Matthews feeling “sick” and “disturbed”, and Ryan agreed that Ginnivan should have been awarded a free kick because even though he may have contributed slightly to the tackle being high, Redman’s tackle was always going to be above the shoulders.

“So did the Collingwood player contribute to it (going) high? He probably did. Did he cause the high tackle? Well, I think it was always going to be high. Now, that’s where I think there needs to be clarity,” Ryan said.

“I think, in my humble view, the rule needs to be adjudicated along the lines of if the player with the ball caused the high tackle, the legal test of negligence is: but for that player’s action, would the high tackle have occurred? So, the tackle would’ve been legal but for that player’s action.

“Now if you say, ‘Yeah, it would’ve been a legal tackle but for what that player did’, then it’s 'play on,' but if you form the conclusion that even though that player has contributed to it being high, the tackler still caused or contributed to the high tackle, then we need to protect the ball player in that circumstance.

“These ones that are high tackles, a swinging arm or those types of things, but the player with the ball is still doing something that’s mildly contributing to it, there’s confusion around whether that ought to be 'play on' or ought to be a high tackle.”

Ryan had sympathy for current umpires who have been put in an “incredibly difficult position” as they have to weigh up many real-time factors in a fraction of a second before deciding whether to pay a free kick or call play to continue.

Embed from Getty Images

“The competing considerations are: we need to protect the player who is brave enough to get the ball first; we need to encourage that player to not do things that would put himself in a situation of danger; but we also need to encourage proper tackling technique, so that the player who is tackling has a duty of care to the player with the ball,” Ryan said.

“If you’re erring on a side, then you need to err on protecting the ball player, unless that ball player was the sole cause of the high tackle, so it seems to me the word ‘responsible’ is a little murky.”